Logophoricity

Logophoricity is a phenomenon of binding relation that may employ a morphologically different set of anaphoric forms, in the context where the referent is an entity whose speech, thoughts, or feelings are being reported.

[1][2] Logophoricity is characterized as a binding relation which distinctly co-references a clause-external antecedent with a clause-internal anaphor which, under certain conditions, may surface with different morphological forms.

He delved into the concept Hagège posited that there are two different perspectives that may be referred to: the actual speaker of the discourse, or someone else whose speech, thoughts, or feelings are being reported.

[1][4] This distinction in perspective may lead the anaphor of a clause, in some languages, to take on different morphological forms – in other words, if meant to depict the perspective of an individual whose speech, thoughts, and feelings are reported, then languages like the one studied by Clements – Ewe[1] – will have logophoric pronouns to explicitly refer to that individual, and no other possible person.

[1] In 2006, Eric Reuland, in his review of Mira Ariel's work on NP antecedents, proposed another explanation: he stated that long-distance reflexives could be said to have logophoric interpretation due to the fact that in some languages and under some circumstances, syntactic binding may not be a necessity.

[1] In Wan, a language spoken primarily in the Ivory Coast, the logophoric pronouns ɓā (singular) and mɔ̰̄ (plural) are used to indicate the speech of the subject of the verb of speaking introduced in the preceding clause.

These logophoric pronouns occur with verbs which denote mental activities and psychological states and are often used often for instances of reported speech.

In casual conversation, use of the perfect form of the verb when presenting speech is often associated with logophoricity as it implies that the event is relevant to the reported situation and consequently, suggests that the current speaker is involved.

'[9] Unknown glossing abbreviation(s) (help);Abe, a Kwa language spoken in the Ivory Coast, has two classes of third-person pronouns: o-pronouns and n-pronouns.

Donno Sɔ has a system of verbal affixation where finite verbs within matrix clauses can optionally agree in person and number with its subject using suffixes.

OumarOumar[inyemɛLOGjɛmbɔsack.DFpazadropbolu-m]left-1Smiñ1S.OBJtagiinformedOumar [inyemɛ jɛmbɔ paza bolu-m] miñ tagiOumar LOG sack.DF drop left-1S 1S.OBJ informed'Oumari told me that shei had left without the sack.'(lit.

[16] Because this simplex reflexive is strictly licensed by predicates of speech and perception, is subject-oriented, and has only negative constraints on anaphoric dependency (such as those which forbid its appearance in the clauses mentioned above), and has "the availability of bound-variable and referential interpretations,"[16] Rudnev (2017) argues that there exists a parallel between the Avar logophoric reflexive žiw and the logophoric pronouns attesed in Africa.

*pat’imatPatimat.ABSc’aq’veryłik’ajgoodjasgirl.ABSj-igo,F-be.PRS[hedinłidalthat’s-whyrasulicaRasul.ERGžijself.F:ABSj-eccule-jF-praise.PRS.PTCP-Fj-ik’-ana]F-be-PST*pat’imat c’aq’ łik’aj jas j-igo, [hedinłidal rasulica žij j-eccule-j j-ik’-ana]Patimat.ABS very good girl.ABS F-be.PRS that’s-why Rasul.ERG self.F:ABS F-praise.PRS.PTCP-F F-be-PST[intended: ‘Patimati is a very nice girl, which is why Rasul was praising heri’[16]Žiw is subject-oriented: only a noun phrase which serves as the subject of the matrix predicate is able to bind the simplex reflexive, as exemplified in (13).

Note also that the žij can only refer to the source of reported speech, a requirement shared by logophoric pronouns in § Ewe and § Abe.

[1][10] jasałgirl.ERGhudulaldafriend.F:LOCbicuntell.CVBb-ugoN-be.PRS[učitelałteacher.F:ERGžijself.F:ABSj-eccule-jF-praise.PRS.PTCP-Fj-ik’an=ilan]F-be.PST=COMPjasał hudulalda bicun b-ugo [učitelał žij j-eccule-j j-ik’an=ilan]girl.ERG friend.F:LOC tell.CVB N-be.PRS teacher.F:ERG self.F:ABS F-praise.PRS.PTCP-F F-be.PST=COMP‘The girli told her friends that the teacherk praised heri/*j/*k.'(lit.

Consider (14): (14a) and (14b) differ in the boldfaced pronouns, where the ungrammaticality of (14b) is due to the fact that, as a reflexive logophor, ži=w is not able to co-refer with dibirica since 'Dibir' doesn't understand that he, the speaker of the attitude report, is giving the speech in the video.

When the indicative clause veit 'know' is embedded under a verb like segja 'say', the subjunctive mood trickles down and allows the reflexive to bind with the matrix subject.

[18] By allowing the reflexive to bind with the speaker, the combination of NCBR and the "trickling" effect of subjunctive mood captures the property of logophoric pronouns.

'[18] Prior to the first usage of the term "logophor", Susumu Kuno analyzed the licensing of the use of the Japanese reflexive pronoun zibun.

This example shows that substituting the Pr-ziji (here, taziji) for ziji can reduce the emphasis and suggest logophoric referencing[24] LaoOldTongTongBaoiBaosuiranalthoughbunothenveryjiderecallzufugrandpashibezenyangwhat"zuoren",sort of mandanbutfuqinfatherdePOSqinjiandiligencezhonghou,honestytaiheshijustqinyanwith his own eyeskanjianseede;POStazijiihimselfyealsoshibeguijurespectableren...manLao Tong Baoi suiran bu hen jide zufu shi zenyang "zuoren", dan fuqin de qinjian zhonghou, tai shi qinyan kanjian de; tazijii ye shi guiju ren...Old Tong Bao although not very recall grandpa be what {sort of man} but father POS diligence honesty he just {with his own eyes} see POS himself also be respectable man'Although Old Tong Baoi couldn't recall what sort of man his grandfather was, hei knew his father had been hardworking and honest—he had seen that with his own eyes.

Old Tong Bao himselfi was a respectable person;...'[24]There has been much discussion in linguistic literature on the type of approach that would best account for logophoricity.

[4] More specifically, Binding Theory organizes nominal expressions into three groups: (i) anaphors, (ii) pronominals, and (iii) R-expressions.

[27] Alternatively, Stirling (1993) contends that logophors are not anaphors at all, as they violate Condition A of Binding Theory with their lack of a c-commanding relationship to the antecedent.

One of the major differences between the two classes of pronouns in Abe is that o-pronouns cannot be coindexed with a c-commanding antecedent that is a n-pronoun, regardless of the degree of embedding.

For example, Minkoff suggests that logophoricity requires a new principle to be added to the set of conditions held by Binding Theory.

Condition A of binding theory, defined in the § Syntactic accounts section, imposes locality restraints on anaphors which require they be bound within their domain.

However, in languages like English, French, Icelandic, Mandarin, Japanese, Turkish, and Uyghur, certain so-called "exempt anaphors" do not fit these requirements.

[30] [LathefilledaughterdeofPaul]iPaulexpliqueexplainsquethat[TP prolog-i l’étrangethe strangejournaldiarydeof[saiherpropreownfille]kdaughterrapporterelates'"`UNIQ--nowiki-000000C1-QINU`"'DP prolog-k lestheignobleshorribleremarquesremarksdesof.themédiasmediasuronellek-même]].her-same[La fille de Paul]i explique que {[TP prolog-i} l’étrange journal de [sai propre fille]k rapporte {[[DP prolog-k} les ignobles remarques des médias sur ellek-même]].the daughter of Paul explains that {} {the strange} diary of her own daughter relates {} the horrible remarks of.the media on her-same'[Paul's daughter]i explains that [heri own daughter]k's strange diary relates the media's horrible remarks about [herself]k.’[30]The above example - with the posited silent logophoric pronouns prolog-i and prolog-k (referring to la fille de Paul and sa propre fille respectively) binding sa propre fille and elle-même respectively - demonstrates that the perspectival domains ([DP _]) can be introduced within clauses ([TP _]).

[30] Source:[31] Peter Sells introduced a semantic account of logophoricity using Discourse Representation Structure (DRS) that was first developed by Hans Kamp in 1981.

This semantic role is assigned the DM v. Similarly to Sells, Stirling argues that once this primitive is within the bounds of a DRS, it is free to be anaphorically related to other NPs in the discourse.